Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with two separate arguments about the death penalty in his academic book The Ethical Life, fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. In the first argument, Justifying Legal Punishment, Igor Primoratz gives us substantive reasoning that opts favorably toward the necessity of the death penalty. Contrasting Primoratz, Stephen Nathanson, through An Eye for an Eye, provides us with an argument that hopes to show us that capital punishment, like murder, is also immoral and therefore, unjust. By the end of this essay, I intend to show that while capital punishment may not be the easy choice for a consequence and punishment to murder, it is, however, the necessary one.
Execution is the act of carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person. This is carried out either by lethal injection or electrocution. Execution despite its barbaric nature has survived in many legal system and will continue to because it: reinforces a state of security of the general public, detters other individuals from committing such crimes, and enforces the concept of cause and effect within the legal system. In the text “The Penalty of Death” H.L. Mencken discusses not only why he supports executions, but also the ripple effects this action has on a society. While in a text entitled “Death Penalty,” Anna Quindlen discusses her objections to execution, because, as she states:”it consists of stooping to the level of the
Oshinsky did a remarkable job explaining the history of the death penalty in a clear and concise way. While the text was fairly short, he effectively provided his readers with well documented and relevant information on how controversial the death penalty has been throughout the past few centuries. He undertook an exceptionally important issue that many Americans do not know much about, or may have conflicting feelings
One side of the argument, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Kent Scheidegger stated that, “...for some crimes any lesser punishment is inadequate as a matter of basic justice… I believe that an effective, enforced death penalty deters some murders.” On the flip side, Death Penalty Focus, an organization that wants to abolish capital punishment, voiced that, “We believe that the death penalty is ineffective, cruel. It… diverts attention and financial resources away from preventative measures that would actually increase public safety, risks the execution of innocent people, and does not deter crime.” When Kent Scheidegger talks about the death penalty being adequate, he shows how different his view of the human condition is versus the Death Penalty Focus’ view stating that it is ineffective, targeting, and cruel. In the case Gregg v Georgia, Justice William J. Brennan addresses, “In the punishment of death, it treats ‘members of the human race as nonhumans, but instead as objects to be toyed with and discarded.”
The author claims that the argument against capital punishment based on the possibility of executing an innocent person is intellectually and morally shallow. He also claims that abolitionists who use this argument are intellectually dishonest because they accept other social policies that lead to the death of innocent individuals. Prager claims that murderers who are not executed have already murdered innocent people, and the possibility of escape from prison means that they threaten even more innocent lives. Additionally, he claims that abolishing capital punishment does not necessarily protect innocent lives because murderers who are not executed may continue to kill. Finally, the author argues that abolitionists should acknowledge their responsibility for innocent lives lost due to murderers who were not executed and state their genuine belief that murderers should never be
In “Death Penalty Debates,” Kenneth Jost, author of the Supreme Court Yearbook talks about the issues of capital punishment. Jost went in depth about the opinions of people that are against the death penalty and the thoughts of people that supports the system. Opponents of the death penalty says that prosecutors are pursuing the death penalty less often as it gets very expensive to sentence and convict a person. In addition, jurors are worried about the risk of executing an innocent individual. However, supporters of the death penalty system stated that the costs are the outcome of death penalty lawyers that deliberately delay procedures.
In his essay, "The Death Penalty," David Bruck hypothesizes that the American people will eventually find that the death penalty is not the best way to punish a convicted murderer. Bruck develops this hypothesis by countering all pro-death penalty arguments with previous cases and specific statistics that apply to the argument. David Bruck's purpose is to persuade the readers to think for themselves on the topic and use what they know as a basis. Bruck uses an educated tone to establish credibility with the reader. He takes apart the views of the local mayor in an attempt to prove anyone wrong who might disagree.
The United States remains in the minority of nations in the world that still uses death as penalty for certain crimes. Capital punishment is seen by many as barbaric and against American values, while others see it as a very important tool in fighting violent pre-meditated murder. One of the supporters of the Death penalty was a man named Walter Berns (a professor of American constitutional law and political philosophy.) He wrote clearly about his view on the death penalty in his Crime and Delinquency article, “Defending the Death Penalty.” He argued that the “Opposition to capital punishment is a modern phenomenon, a product of modern sentiment and modern thought” (p. 504) and with the help of historical references and logical reasoning throughout
Ernest Van Den Haag defense of the death penalty is very will contested. However, his conclusion while contract is still lacking. Haag understanding argument of the death penalty is suitable. However, the problem lays with the fact Haag does not go far enough. One must understand Haag argument to correctly critique his argument.
These arguments can be supported and solidified by the cases of Andre Thomas and Anthony Graves. Those who wish to abolish the death penalty may begin by arguing that
Should America continue to allow the death penalty? This essay will tell you why America should not be continue the death penalty. For starters, the death penalty is punishment by death; usually resulting after a crime that America calls capital crimes or capital offences. There are many of reasons why the death penalty should not be carried out in America or anywhere “Application of the death penalty tends to be arbitrary and capricious; for similar crimes, some are sentenced to death while others are not.”
Abolitionists contest that society must abandon the revenge mentality if civilization is to better evolve. They believe that the death penalty fuels a vicious cycle of violence and that retaliating simply for vengeance can only make the situation worse. They argue that
Point number 3 is that the death penalty creates the possibility that innocent people may be put on death row. The death penalty should only be those who are convicted truly. For example, Kevin Green from the Deseret News, interviewed an innocent man, Ray Krone, a man convicted twice and was sentenced to the death penalty for something he did not do. He spent countless of money and his family had to feel the impact on the fact he was on death row for something he did not commit. The crime was a murder of a woman figure in Arizona.
In conclusion the idea that the death penalty should be abolished can be supported by many reasons that include extensive evidence. With the death penalty still established we are putting innocent people's lives at risk, spending millions, and continue with racial segregation. The idea that someone's opinion in court can decide the fate of another person is
Within the legal realm of the death penalty one clear proponent against the concept, the
